Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

financialinclusion.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 57 posts

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

#11

Post by once_inc »

astoor wrote: post #5

The problem is that any "legitimate" use case is negated many times over by all the illegitimate ones. It would be like saying let's legitimise terrorism because sometimes the terrorists might (just might) be freedom fighters, when in actual fact terrorism on the whole does way more harm than it does good. In the opening example, sure some money may have got through to Ukraine via cryptocurrency (although some was st…

You are making blanket statements without backing it up with evidence. Even if you do back it up with evidence, it will be anecdotal, since Russia has been actively working on crypto infrastructure and reserves, while Ukraine hasn't. Also, you are comparing individual Ukranians with the Russian state.

Also; Bitcoin isn't net negative for society and environment. Another blanket statement given without any form of evidence. Please note that the environment FUD has been refuted many, many times over.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

#12

Post by vesinisa »

once_inc wrote: post #8
vesinisa wrote: post #3

What's next? Letters in support by money launderers, drug cartels, online scammers, ransomware authors and pedophiles? El Salvador made it a government policy to adopt Bitcoin as an official currency and it is not going too well - it remains a novelty used by just a few privileged individuals. As these technologies are not viable for everyday use, a country with unstable local currency will in reality start using USD…

Check Alex Gladstein(one of the writers)'s weblog and check some of his articles. Bitcoin is inherently a-political and inclusive; it doesn't know who is doing what with bitcoin at the protocol level. Yes, this allows scammers et al to do bad things, but it also makes financial inclusion possible for most of the people currently gatekept away from financial inclusion. El Salvador is frontrunning, and acceptance isn't…

Right. It's always "early" for Bitcoin. It's been "early" for 13 years now. A high time someone blew the whistle on this destructive madness.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

#13

Post by once_inc »

vesinisa wrote: post #12
once_inc wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check Alex Gladstein(one of the writers)'s weblog and check some of his articles. Bitcoin is inherently a-political and inclusive; it doesn't know who is doing what with bitcoin at the protocol level. Yes, this allows scammers et al to do bad things, but it also makes financial inclusion possible for most of the people currently gatekept away from financial inclusion. El Salvador is frontrunning, and acceptance isn't…

Right. It's always "early" for Bitcoin. It's been "early" for 13 years now. A high time someone blew the whistle on this destructive madness.

My Early reference is in relation the the El Salvador bitcoin legal tender law, which is less than a year old.

What is destructive exactly?

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

#14

Post by reflexco »

astoor wrote: post #5

The problem is that any "legitimate" use case is negated many times over by all the illegitimate ones. It would be like saying let's legitimise terrorism because sometimes the terrorists might (just might) be freedom fighters, when in actual fact terrorism on the whole does way more harm than it does good. In the opening example, sure some money may have got through to Ukraine via cryptocurrency (although some was st…

Are you seriously comparing cryptocurrency with terrorism? One is a inherently neutral tool, functionally almost identical to cash, the other is a inherently harmful violent action.

I mean there are plenty of countries where the idea of free trade being inherently harmful is accepted as common knowledge, but the US isn't one. Your view is one of extremism.

Maybe we need to modernize Godwin's law with "terrorism".

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

#15

Post by jahnu »

reflexco wrote: post #14
astoor wrote: post #5

The problem is that any "legitimate" use case is negated many times over by all the illegitimate ones. It would be like saying let's legitimise terrorism because sometimes the terrorists might (just might) be freedom fighters, when in actual fact terrorism on the whole does way more harm than it does good. In the opening example, sure some money may have got through to Ukraine via cryptocurrency (although some was st…

Are you seriously comparing cryptocurrency with terrorism? One is a inherently neutral tool, functionally almost identical to cash, the other is a inherently harmful violent action. I mean there are plenty of countries where the idea of free trade being inherently harmful is accepted as common knowledge, but the US isn't one. Your view is one of extremism. Maybe we need to modernize Godwin's law with "terrorism".

They are clearly not and it’s daft to suggest they are. They are using an extreme example that should be easy to agree on to establish a principle or point that then once understood should be used to analyse the actual, less obvious, thing they are criticising.

Whether or not their point is a good one is a separate issue.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

#16

Post by vesinisa »

once_inc wrote: post #13
vesinisa wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. It's always "early" for Bitcoin. It's been "early" for 13 years now. A high time someone blew the whistle on this destructive madness.

My Early reference is in relation the the El Salvador bitcoin legal tender law, which is less than a year old. What is destructive exactly?

Bitcoin's resource use, comparable to a mid-size country: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/

Lacking viable uses outside of the criminal underworld and speculation, this is wasted energy. And it will only keep growing unless regulators step in.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

#17

Post by danuker »

once_inc wrote: post #13
vesinisa wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. It's always "early" for Bitcoin. It's been "early" for 13 years now. A high time someone blew the whistle on this destructive madness.

My Early reference is in relation the the El Salvador bitcoin legal tender law, which is less than a year old. What is destructive exactly?

I would say the wasteful proof-of-work securing upwards of $1M per hour is destructive - https://www.crypto51.app/.

It can be solved through Pigovian taxes on externalities (carbon emission mainly). But it should apply to all industry fairly, and our energy-industry lobbyists will hear none of it.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

#18

Post by solar-ice »

once_inc wrote: post #8
vesinisa wrote: post #3

What's next? Letters in support by money launderers, drug cartels, online scammers, ransomware authors and pedophiles? El Salvador made it a government policy to adopt Bitcoin as an official currency and it is not going too well - it remains a novelty used by just a few privileged individuals. As these technologies are not viable for everyday use, a country with unstable local currency will in reality start using USD…

Check Alex Gladstein(one of the writers)'s weblog and check some of his articles. Bitcoin is inherently a-political and inclusive; it doesn't know who is doing what with bitcoin at the protocol level. Yes, this allows scammers et al to do bad things, but it also makes financial inclusion possible for most of the people currently gatekept away from financial inclusion. El Salvador is frontrunning, and acceptance isn't…

Bitcoin is not "inherently apolitical"; it encodes several political ideas, including that unregulated capitalism is a good thinng and the environment is not worth worrying about. There's also some more specific ones, even if you generally agree with those; that a deflationary currency is a good thing, for example.

"Apolitical" in this context seems to mean "I agree with its politics".

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

#19

Post by reflexco »

jahnu wrote: post #15
reflexco wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously comparing cryptocurrency with terrorism? One is a inherently neutral tool, functionally almost identical to cash, the other is a inherently harmful violent action. I mean there are plenty of countries where the idea of free trade being inherently harmful is accepted as common knowledge, but the US isn't one. Your view is one of extremism. Maybe we need to modernize Godwin's law with "terrorism".

They are clearly not and it’s daft to suggest they are. They are using an extreme example that should be easy to agree on to establish a principle or point that then once understood should be used to analyse the actual, less obvious, thing they are criticising. Whether or not their point is a good one is a separate issue.

My point is that this is an apples and oranges comparison. An appropriate comparison would be between banning terrorism and banning sending cryptocurrency to enemy governments. Thankfully both are already banned so there's no need to debate on this.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

#20

Post by once_inc »

vesinisa wrote: post #16
once_inc wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My Early reference is in relation the the El Salvador bitcoin legal tender law, which is less than a year old. What is destructive exactly?

Bitcoin's resource use, comparable to a mid-size country: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ Lacking viable uses outside of the criminal underworld and speculation, this is wasted energy. And it will only keep growing unless regulators step in.

There is a vast amount of legitimate use on the Bitcoin blockchain. Even companies that have a clear incentive to find criminal use of Bitcoin can only find anywhere between 1 and 4% possibly criminial transaction use. That is considerably lower than estimates for the USD or EUR.

Comparing the energy usage of a single global industry to a mid-size country is dumb. All of this fud originates from digiconomist, which also has an incentive to keep spewing this garbage. You can find a vast amount of refutations on this, but the one by Nic Carter is good:

https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/03/05/the-frustrating...

Post reply on HN